Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fangorn who wrote (84416)	12/9/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 176387

****OT*** I have been trying to get Monica's telephone number. I understand she is available now. I could use some publicity. <Hehe>

To: Fangorn who wrote (84416)	12/9/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

~~~OT~~~ Steven, I was watching the hearings for a few minutes last night on C-SPAN, and had the pleasure of being able to watch the Honorable Maxine Watters wax-eloquent about the President's power to "squash" any Congressional actions taken in 1999 based on the recommendations of the Judiciary Committee, since the new Congress (and hence the new Judiciary Committee) will have a different make-up. She used the word "squash" three or four times. It's good to see that our legislators know the proper usage and meaning of the word "squash", instead of, say, perhaps a word that you might find in federal laws (exempting agricultural laws pertaining to the vegetable "squash", of course) like, for instance, "quash"... I guess a rudimentary grasp for vocabulary and, say, things like the law, is not a prerequisite for running for office, unless of course, you're a Republican. Perhaps the same applies to Oval Office tomfoolery??? After having conflicting and contemporaneous thoughts of humor and disgust, I turned the television off... R, LoD

To: Fangorn who wrote (84416)	12/9/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

OT can you point out unequivocally the perjury or perjuries you are confident occurred? Where have you been? VBG You seem to dodge the question. I watched the Clinton tape and he carefully explained how he misled but did not explicitly lie to the PJ attorneys. They in turn left the answers unclear in an effort to entrap the President. Just because a lot people repeat the word perjury does not make it so. TP (who thinks republican moderates are in more danger than Clinton)